> $p is Point {x: 3, y: $y};
> // If $p->x === 3, bind $p->y to $y and return true.
> $p is Point {y: 37, x:@($x)};
> // $p->x === $x && $p->y == 37
I'm just going to put in my $0.02 here and downvote this syntax. I
believe that it should be swapped. IMO, `{x: 3, y: $y}` looks too
similar to the
ven
though my example is for properties.)
trait GenericTrait
{
private ?T $object = null;
}
class ComposableClass
{
use GenericTrait;
}
// Result:
class ComposedClass
{
private ?Foo $object = null;
}
Just a random thought...
Regards,
radar3301
"` returns 8 results
- `language:php "class Same "` returns 290 results
- `language:php "class Same extends"` returns 193 results
- `language:php "class Same implements"` returns 14 results
- `language:php "@return $this"` returns 485k results.
---
Regards,
radar3301
ate here.
Sebastian Bergmann said:
> [snip] please not "$this" as the name for a type.
> Off the top of my head, I think that "same" could make sense.
My primary vote would still be for "$this" as explained above, but I
could potentially be persuaded
to switch to "this" or "same" as alternatives if the dollar-sign is
too much of a hang-up.
Regards,
radar3301
.
BC:
There would be no BC breaks, as this syntax is currently invalid (Parse
error: syntax error, unexpected variable "$this").
Other Considerations:
With regards to reflection and inheritance, "$this" would be considered an
alias for "static".
Regards,
radar3301
